U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1964

Faulstich v. Ladd

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided June 15, 1964

338 F.2d 265; 119 U.S. App. D.C. 156 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Ralph D. Dinklage, of the bar of the Court of Appeals of New York, New York City, pro hac vice, by special leave of court, with whom Mr. Martin T. Fisher, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. George H. Mitchell, Jr., Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant., Mr. Joseph Schimmel, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Sol., was on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

24 later published cases cite this decision.

Smith v. United States (D.C. 1990)
Milton M. Levin v. Ramsey Clark, Attorney General of the United States (D.C. Cir. 1968)
Clifford Jones v. Honorable Oliver Gasch, Judge of the United States District Court for Thedistrict of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1968)
Milton M. Levin v. Nicholas Deb. Katzenbach, Attorney General of the United States (D.C. Cir. 1966)
Levin v. Katzenbach (District Court, District of Columbia 1966)
Douglas v. United States (D.C. 1990)
Tibbs v. United States (D.C. 1986)
Carmon v. United States (D.C. 1985)
Farnsworth v. Steiner (Alaska 1979)
Sellman v. United States (D.C. 1978)
Locks v. United States (D.C. 1978)
Moss v. United States (D.C. 1977)
United States v. Roy Lee Crawford (8th Cir. 1971)
Ferguson v. State (Alaska 1971)
In re Bumphus (D.C. 1969)
Reed v. United States (D.C. 1968)
Mitchell v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1968)
Jesse B. Manbeck v. Gerald S. Ostrowski (D.C. Cir. 1967)
United States v. Jones (District Court, District of Columbia 1967)
United States v. Baker (District Court, District of Columbia 1966)
State v. Ford (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1966)
Milton M. Levin v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1965)
Levin v. Katzenbach (District Court, District of Columbia 1965)
Marga Faulstich v. David L. Ladd, Commissioner of Patents, (Two Cases) (D.C. Cir. 1964)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

These cases came on to be heard on the record on appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 218 F.Supp. 830, and were argued by counsel.

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it is ordered and adjudged by this court that the judgment of the District Court on appeal in these cases is hereby affirmed without prejudice to the reopening of the proceedings before the Patent Office, through any means available, for the purpose of allowing appellant the opportunity to amplify her applications for patents.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.